Why do some people hate Gambit?

hopper1979

I have no issues with Gambit, my issue is he is getting a 5 and a 3 release.  I really feel 5's should be the most powerful characters in the marvel universe I know this is not the case (Hawkeye and Blackwidow before Thor) but if any one of the 3 new mutants should have been a 5 it is Rogue she has the potential to be one of the most powerful people in the universe, Gambit is not a particularly powerful mutant, in the overall spectrum, even though he has a great power.

Jarvind

csista said:

smkspy said:

csista said:

I definitely think a large part of the animosity is resentment towards his fans. When someone says Gambit is their favorite character, you get the feeling they haven't read a single comic in the last 20 years while you stuck around and they're kind of posing as a fan. Like if you asked them how they felt when Gambit was a horseman of Apocalypse, they would say, "No way! He was a horseman of Apocalypse? Cool!" Kind of makes you want to ignore any opinion they have about the character.

No way! Gambit was a horseman of apocalypse!!!!

Just kidding, but yours and mega ghost attitudes are those very worst comic culture attributes also. That if you haven't kept up constantly with a character or title, know every single arc of them, then you are not a "true fan" or any opinion you may have of character isn't valid. Which I guess that I would fall into your category since I quit buying single issues in 2010, and still a fan of the character but pretty ignorant of his status of the last 7 years.

People with those attitudes made me loathe going into the comic shop every Wednesday for my weekly books or into a store when back issuing shopping. Type of "this my club" I know everything and look down upon you comic book neckbeard that it is literally impossible to have a conversation. 

Not saying that is either of you guys, but if you're gambit hater, then you're probably one of those guys.

And I'm a Gambit fan by default being from Louisiana. That said, have never meet anyone from New Orleans with that accent. Lots of Cajun french in southwest louisiana, but even they don't speak in the Claremont-isms...but that was his style of writing.

I definitely know the kind of people you're referring to, but I'm not one of those. I hate those gatekeeper types, too. Comics are dying, new fans are welcome and needed. Or returning old ones. It's just that right now, superheroes and geek culture in general are very mainstream. So along with that you get the insincere lifelong "fans" that are trying to be part of the trend. And a lot of those types use Gambit as a reference, because the last time they actually cared was when they watched the cartoon as a kid, and he was at peak popularity at that time. And when it gets reported that Gambit's getting his own movie, or that he's coming to MPQ before so many other characters, it can feel like those guys are getting rewarded before the ones who stuck around through thick and thin and had to patiently wait for him to fade away.

Personally, I have no issue with it. Superheroes have fan bases coming from all different directions, and they're all a part of this game community. I'm here as more of a comics fan. A lot are here because of the movies. And in the case of the X-Men, you have old fans of a beloved cartoon from their childhood. I think this new trio of characters is a great combination. Nightcrawler for the readers, Gambit for the viewers, and Rogue bridges both. 

I guess I'm one of these. I did read the comics back in the day, but I only got Uncanny X-Men and Amazing Spider-Man and not all the 528 offshoots, so I frequently only sort of knew what was going on. One day I got my issue of X-Men and with no warning it was Age of Apocalypse, Professor X was dead, Magneto was a good guy...I was just like "well this is weird" and went with it. I stopped renewing the subscriptions around the start of high school and never really read the comics after that.

But, yeah, gatekeepers are the worst. I had someone get all righteous on me once because I didn't get into Rage Against the Machine until they had a song on Guitar Hero and I realized I liked them. Like, who cares how you got into it? Just let people enjoy things.

fight4thedream

I think DANi13's post is prettty spot on and worth considering. After reflecting on my own fanboy love of the character, I realized the reason why I started liking Gambit and the reason I still like him is simply because he was the happy-go-lucky, carefree, charming member of the X-men. 

In other words, he is the Michelangelo of the 90's X-men team. No doubt, it's a bit of an egregious juxtaposition but still I think there's some jewels to be gained from comparing the popular 90's cartoon with its equally, if not more popular predecessor, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

In terms of male representation, the comparison is easy.

Professor Xavier = Master Splinter (wise, older, powerful mentor figure)
Magneto = Shredder (Antagonist with a shared past with mentor figure)
Cyclops =  Leonardo (Leader, responsible, good soldier) 
Wolverine = Raphael (angry, chip-on-the shoulder, rebellious type)
Beast = Donatello (smart, brainy, inventor type)
Gambit = Michelangelo (fun-loving, pleasure seeking type)

I would not be surprised if this group dynamic of leader, rebel, intellectual and happy-go-lucky type was taken into serious consideration when determining the main cast of the show (and in turn, the comics. Edit to add: Yes, I am aware the comics predate the TMNT and were a possible influence on the original TMNT comics). Furthermore, where the X-men the cartoon improved upon this formula was by incorporating its strong female characters from the comic to balance out the X-boys and add romantic tension, the whole Jean-Cyclops-Wolverine love triangle and Gambit and Rogue. 


What it means to be "cool"?
More often than not, criticism of the character of Gambit comes in the form of: he is all style and no substance, he was designed to be "cool" and therefore is superficial. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I think there is a bit more to it than that. Looking at the four male archetypes of leader, rebel, intellectual and pleasure seeker all have their own "cool" element to them. However, as any child of the 80's and 90's knows, the two most popular on the team were the rebel (Raphael/Wolverine) and the pleasure seeker (Michelangelo/Gambit).

And more often than not, when it comes to counting cool points, at the end of the day the Rebel tends to win out more than the party boy. Why? Well that's rudimentary my dear Watson: the rebel usually has some sort of internal conflict or history (or in the case of Raphael, angsty teenager hormones going out of control lol) that explains why they cannot simply obey orders. Furthermore, their ontological position is in direct contrast to the authority figure, the leader, symbol of responsibility and good stewardship. This position allows the rebel to act independently, usually adhering to their own sense of what is right and wrong.

The pleasure seeker, on the other hand, has nothing grand or noble to which to justify their "cool" status. They exude confidence in their carefree nature but their is nothing to justify this confidence. They are not angry at the world nor have they suffered a particular psychological trauma that has helped them earn their "coolness" which for many people makes them come off as superficial. They can be difficult to relate to for this reason.

While it's true that later revelations about Gambit's history was an attempt to give him that "gravitas" which his critics will undoubtedly called contrived, as a fan it made the character all the more interesting. Here is a man that has done quite a few terrible things in his life, has made his share of mistakes, but instead of brood over it he chooses to continue to live life to the fullest. Don't get me wrong, I also am a Wolverine fan (and an Archangel fan mind you) but as DANi13 so aptly pointed out there is only enough room on the team for one brooding rebel. 

To put it simply, I like Gambit for the same reason I like Michelangelo. They were the characters that seemed to be having the most fun. ﾞ☆⌒o(*^ｰﾟ)ｖ

Jarvind

fight4thedream said:

I think DANi13's post is prettty spot on and worth considering. After reflecting on my own fanboy love of the character, I realized the reason why I started liking Gambit and the reason I still like him is simply because he was the happy-go-lucky, carefree, charming member of the X-men. 

In other words, he is the Michelangelo of the 90's X-men team. No doubt, it's a bit of an egregious juxtaposition but still I think there's some jewels to be gained from comparing the popular 90's cartoon with its equally, if not more popular predecessor, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

In terms of male representation, the comparison is easy.

Professor Xavier = Master Splinter (wise, older, powerful mentor figure)
Magneto = Shredder (Antagonist with a shared past with mentor figure)
Cyclops =  Leonardo (Leader, responsible, good soldier) 
Wolverine = Raphael (angry, chip-on-the shoulder, rebellious type)
Beast = Donatello (smart, brainy, inventor type)
Gambit = Michelangelo (fun-loving, pleasure seeking type)

I would not be surprised if this group dynamic of leader, rebel, intellectual and happy-go-lucky type was taken into serious consideration when determining the main cast of the show (and in turn, the comics. Edit to add: Yes, I am aware the comics predate the TMNT and were a possible influence on the original TMNT comics). Furthermore, where the X-men the cartoon improved upon this formula was by incorporating its strong female characters from the comic to balance out the X-boys and add romantic tension, the whole Jean-Cyclops-Wolverine love triangle and Gambit and Rogue. 


What it means to be "cool"?
More often than not, criticism of the character of Gambit comes in the form of: he is all style and no substance, he was designed to be "cool" and therefore is superficial. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I think there is a bit more to it than that. Looking at the four male archetypes of leader, rebel, intellectual and pleasure seeker all have their own "cool" element to them. However, as any child of the 80's and 90's knows, the two most popular on the team were the rebel (Raphael/Wolverine) and the pleasure seeker (Michelangelo/Gambit).

And more often than not, when it comes to counting cool points, at the end of the day the Rebel tends to win out more than the party boy. Why? Well that's rudimentary my dear Watson: the rebel usually has some sort of internal conflict or history (or in the case of Raphael, angsty teenager hormones going out of control lol) that explains why they cannot simply obey orders. Furthermore, their ontological position is in direct contrast to the authority figure, the leader, symbol of responsibility and good stewardship. This position allows the rebel to act independently, usually adhering to their own sense of what is right and wrong.

The pleasure seeker, on the other hand, has nothing grand or noble to which to justify their "cool" status. They exude confidence in their carefree nature but their is nothing to justify this confidence. They are not angry at the world nor have they suffered a particular psychological trauma that has helped them earn their "coolness" which for many people makes them come off as superficial. They can be difficult to relate to for this reason.

While it's true that later revelations about Gambit's history was an attempt to give him that "gravitas" which his critics will undoubtedly called contrived, as a fan it made the character all the more interesting. Here is a man that has done quite a few terrible things in his life, has made his share of mistakes, but instead of brood over it he chooses to continue to live life to the fullest. Don't get me wrong, I also am a Wolverine fan (and an Archangel fan mind you) but as DANi13 so aptly pointed out there is only enough room on the team for one brooding rebel. 

To put it simply, I like Gambit for the same reason I like Michelangelo. They were the characters that seemed to be having the most of fun. ﾞ☆⌒o(*^ｰﾟ)ｖ

I'm gonna try to boil all this down:

Wolverine = Chaotic Good
Gambit = Chaotic Neutral

Jaedenkaal

csista said:

I definitely think a large part of the animosity is resentment towards his fans. When someone says Gambit is their favorite character, you get the feeling they haven't read a single comic in the last 20 years while you stuck around and they're kind of posing as a fan. Like if you asked them how they felt when Gambit was a horseman of Apocalypse, they would say, "No way! He was a horseman of Apocalypse? Cool!" Kind of makes you want to ignore any opinion they have about the character.

Why would I have to read (let alone like) every comic he's ever been in to be a Gambit fan?

Jabrony Geoff said:

...because he's massively overrated.
Whoop de do, let me throw some charged cards here; let me throw some charged cards there.
Gambit = Thumbs down

It's his shtick. Everyone has their shtick. And frankly, that's about as complete a description of gambit as saying Wolverine "has claws"

Kishida said:

I understand that he can charge anything with energy. The fact that out of all potential options, they went with playing cards, that's what strikes me as goofy. Talking about the Distinguished Competition here, but that always felt like the huge failing of Green Lantern: dude can create anything he can think of, and it turns out he's not much of a thinker.

Or more likely, it makes a better story when GL doesn't make the perfect thing and win on page 3 every time.

He (Gambit) is a gambler. Cards are part of his thing. Plays into the card throwing trope, which was a thing in the 1800s. Poker chip throwing, conversely, is not a thing, even it would make sense with his theme. (never mind that it's much harder to stow large bundles of poker chips about one's person).

mega ghost

fight4thedream said:

In other words, he is the Michelangelo of the 90's X-men team. No doubt, it's a bit of an egregious juxtaposition but still I think there's some jewels to be gained from comparing the popular 90's cartoon with its equally, if not more popular predecessor, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

In terms of male representation, the comparison is easy.

Professor Xavier = Master Splinter (wise, older, powerful mentor figure)
Magneto = Shredder (Antagonist with a shared past with mentor figure)
Cyclops =  Leonardo (Leader, responsible, good soldier) 
Wolverine = Raphael (angry, chip-on-the shoulder, rebellious type)
Beast = Donatello (smart, brainy, inventor type)
Gambit = Michelangelo (fun-loving, pleasure seeking type)

And Jubilee and April O'Neil have similar coats!

D4Ni13

fight4thedream said:

I think DANi13's post is prettty spot on and worth considering. After reflecting on my own fanboy love of the character, I realized the reason why I started liking Gambit and the reason I still like him is simply because he was the happy-go-lucky, carefree, charming member of the X-men. 

In other words, he is the Michelangelo of the 90's X-men team. No doubt, it's a bit of an egregious juxtaposition but still I think there's some jewels to be gained from comparing the popular 90's cartoon with its equally, if not more popular predecessor, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

In terms of male representation, the comparison is easy.

Professor Xavier = Master Splinter (wise, older, powerful mentor figure)
Magneto = Shredder (Antagonist with a shared past with mentor figure)
Cyclops =  Leonardo (Leader, responsible, good soldier) 
Wolverine = Raphael (angry, chip-on-the shoulder, rebellious type)
Beast = Donatello (smart, brainy, inventor type)
Gambit = Michelangelo (fun-loving, pleasure seeking type)

I would not be surprised if this group dynamic of leader, rebel, intellectual and happy-go-lucky type was taken into serious consideration when determining the main cast of the show (and in turn, the comics. Edit to add: Yes, I am aware the comics predate the TMNT and were a possible influence on the original TMNT comics). Furthermore, where the X-men the cartoon improved upon this formula was by incorporating its strong female characters from the comic to balance out the X-boys and add romantic tension, the whole Jean-Cyclops-Wolverine love triangle and Gambit and Rogue. 


What it means to be "cool"?
More often than not, criticism of the character of Gambit comes in the form of: he is all style and no substance, he was designed to be "cool" and therefore is superficial. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I think there is a bit more to it than that. Looking at the four male archetypes of leader, rebel, intellectual and pleasure seeker all have their own "cool" element to them. However, as any child of the 80's and 90's knows, the two most popular on the team were the rebel (Raphael/Wolverine) and the pleasure seeker (Michelangelo/Gambit).

And more often than not, when it comes to counting cool points, at the end of the day the Rebel tends to win out more than the party boy. Why? Well that's rudimentary my dear Watson: the rebel usually has some sort of internal conflict or history (or in the case of Raphael, angsty teenager hormones going out of control lol) that explains why they cannot simply obey orders. Furthermore, their ontological position is in direct contrast to the authority figure, the leader, symbol of responsibility and good stewardship. This position allows the rebel to act independently, usually adhering to their own sense of what is right and wrong.

The pleasure seeker, on the other hand, has nothing grand or noble to which to justify their "cool" status. They exude confidence in their carefree nature but their is nothing to justify this confidence. They are not angry at the world nor have they suffered a particular psychological trauma that has helped them earn their "coolness" which for many people makes them come off as superficial. They can be difficult to relate to for this reason.

While it's true that later revelations about Gambit's history was an attempt to give him that "gravitas" which his critics will undoubtedly called contrived, as a fan it made the character all the more interesting. Here is a man that has done quite a few terrible things in his life, has made his share of mistakes, but instead of brood over it he chooses to continue to live life to the fullest. Don't get me wrong, I also am a Wolverine fan (and an Archangel fan mind you) but as DANi13 so aptly pointed out there is only enough room on the team for one brooding rebel. 

To put it simply, I like Gambit for the same reason I like Michelangelo. They were the characters that seemed to be having the most fun. ﾞ☆⌒o(*^ｰﾟ)ｖ

So that is the reason I love both X-Men & TMNT. You sir are a genius

That being said, I always liked Donatello, but I am content at most about Beast. I wonder why...

Marine8394

DAZ0273 said:

Kishida said:

White_Deth said:

Kishida said:

I think everybody else has mostly covered it, but... awkward 90s-style contrived "cool guy," skeezy as all hell, cartoonish accent as shorthand for character development (one of Claremont's worst, laziest tendencies), ridiculous costume, goofy powers (seriously, playing cards?!?). To me, he's basically the Poochie of the X-Men. Granted, there were worse characters to follow, but for some inexplicable reason, Gambit got kind of grandfathered in to iconic status.

His power is the ability to charge anything with energy. He peraonally uses playing cards as his go to because, well he likes gambling. He can even charge himself making him able to sustain large impacts and charge his staff. He doea it to much he does need to rest. I mean id love the fact i could prwtty much make a deadly exploaive decice out of a piece of paper lol

I understand that he can charge anything with energy. The fact that out of all potential options, they went with playing cards, that's what strikes me as goofy. Talking about the Distinguished Competition here, but that always felt like the huge failing of Green Lantern: dude can create anything he can think of, and it turns out he's not much of a thinker.

But...but...Gambit needs those playing cards for his best lines!

"I am t'inkin' defeat is on de CARDS for you, Monsiuer!"

"Play your CARDS right and Gambit will buy Taco's for dinner, cher!"

"Gambit be dealin' a winning hand from dis pack, non? Jus' in case Gambit not being clear, he is talkin' 'bout cards."

And in these quotes; I just found a reason to hate Gambit.

BigMike182

You want a happy-go-lucky X-Man to contrast the gruff Wolverine, regal Storm, and stoic Cyclops? One with a cool power set, who moves with grace and speed? Maybe with a unique accent?

 Great! We have just the character for you! He's called Nightcrawler.

veny

Am i the only one who cares only about skills of the character, possibility to make a synergy with other and how quickly i get ISO to max him?

On the other hand i must admit i am not very happy that we have "extremists" like Howard da Duck or Dino

Dragon_Nexus

Kishida said:

goofy powers (seriously, playing cards?!?).

Incorrect. Gambit's power isn't "He's really good at throwing cards, yo!"
His power is to tap into and release the latent energy in an object. So he can pull the energy up from a playing card to make it explosive. He can do that with any object, but he chooses to use playing cards. I'm not sure if there's a narrative reason like "He used to be a poker shark" or something or if it's because a playing card has the right energy balance to be damaging without being nuclear...or what.

People often say he has dumb powers in the same way people think Aquaman is a dumb character based on the Super Friends cartoon, ignoring the fact that Aquaman is fast, incredibly strong and is king of 2/3 of the Earth's surface.

BigMike182

Why does Gambit use playing cards? Because he can charge them up in less than a second. The bigger the object, the longer it takes to fully charge. Playing cards are small & thin, so he can use his power quickly.

Incidentally, Gambit used little throwing spikes in his 1st appearance. He used cards beginning with his 2nd adventure. 

atomzed

To all the Gambit fans and haters, thank you for writing your perspective in here. it was fun and insightful to read the various posts!

Forbush

Beer40 said:

Gambit was awesome, still is awesome. The 90's were awesome and will always be remembered as awesome. I'm sure the MCU crowd would disagree because if its not Avengers/GotG/Inhumans its not "real" Marvel. Oh, if you only knew...

I'm an old Marvel fan - I grew up on Claremont's X-Men, Excalibur, and New Mutants, Simonson's Thor, Byrne's FF, Miller's Daredevil, and on and on.  And I'm still a member of the Merry Marvel Marching Society - I love Kamala and Doreen and Amadeus and Lunella, and many more.  I've bought comics featuring three different teams called the Guardians of the Galaxy, in four different decades. 
But man, the nineties were the wooooooorrrrsst.  Just the most excruciatingly awful time for superhero comics probably ever.  And Gambit is a great example of why that decade was so try-hard, fake edgy, cynical corporate toothgritted huge-gun nonsense.  (Cable would be an even better example - but unlike Gambit, Cable has actually become an interesting character these days.)

Dragon_Nexus

BigMike182 said:

Why does Gambit use playing cards? Because he can charge them up in less than a second. The bigger the object, the longer it takes to fully charge. Playing cards are small & thin, so he can use his power quickly.

Incidentally, Gambit used little throwing spikes in his 1st appearance. He used cards beginning with his 2nd adventure. 

Ah, thank you. I figured there had to be some reason outside of "They look cool!" or "It's his gmmick."

smkspy

Pick any Image character for worst of the 90s had to offer. My particular favorite poster is still Spawn. 

Some great things have been done with Cable over the years, but he is a leading man. A character that can carry his own title or headline a team book.

Gambit has and always will be a support character. Just like Iceman, who was the original carefree fun X Man. Then his successor was Nightcrawler til he left the team. The 80s brought us Longshot, then we got Gambit in 1990.

But that's just support characters, their popularity ebbs and flows depending on numerous factors.

Ctenko

my unwanted 2 cents. 

Gambit's kind of a tinykittyheel, with a barely sympathetic backstory. He was bad to people he should have been good to, and represents someone too selfish to truly be a hero in my books. He's not as bad as Nightwing, but he's worse than Cyclops, and Cyclops is also kind of a terrible person. Mostly however, it's that Gambit is a step away from being a trailer trash butthat, with mustard stains on his aptly mentioned Wife Beater. 

But meh, maybe I just REALLY hated New Son.  *Shrugs*

DAZ0273

Dormammu said:

Jarvind said:

Jabrony Geoff said:

...because he's massively overrated.
Whoop de do, let me throw some charged cards here; let me throw some charged cards there.
Gambit = Thumbs down

I mean, you could say that about any character though. "Oooh wolverine, he has claws and he heals, whoopty doo."

Wolverine isn't popular because of his powers, just like Gambit isn't unpopular because of his. Logan is a fascinating character because of his struggle against his own nature - the overpowering animalistic 'berserker' that he loathes so much. Read his first limited series (drawn by Frank Miller) because nowhere is this better displayed than the loss of Mariko because her father saw Logan as nothing more than an animal, unworthy of his daughter. This nature coupled with his lack of memory made Logan an ultimate loner and he struggled with being a team player for 100+ issues of X-Men comics before finally clasping hands with Storm after the mutant massacre - that's depth.

Gambit came from a house of assassins - that's cliche.

Actually Gambit is from the Thieves Guild, the Assassins are their arch enemies!

With regard to Wolverine, Claremont hated him at first and wanted him killed off but he came to find another angle to explore (very much in the mini series you describe above) so I guess any character can be redeemable.

smkspy

Claremont still planned to kill Wolverine in the late 80s and probably would have if Jim Lee had not started co-plotting the book with him.

And if anyone read his Xmen Forever, his ideas would have terrible. Claremont became his own worst enemy towards his final years on Uncanny.

Jarvind

veny said:

Am i the only one who cares only about skills of the character, possibility to make a synergy with other and how quickly i get ISO to max him?

On the other hand i must admit i am not very happy that we have "extremists" like Howard da Duck or Dino

I mean, ultimately I roster everyone. I'm never going to hamper my own progress just because I don't like a character or their artwork. On the other hand, I know not everyone thinks that way.